Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 16/04/2015 23:35, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, April 16, 2015 16:46 -0400 Tony Hansen
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Just now, I've re-reviewed all references to 3986 within
>> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06 and don't see anywhere
>> that it should be construed as >updating< 3986. There are lots
>> of places where people are directed to looking at 3986 and
>> 3987, and a thorough understanding of those is needed to fully
>> appreciate some of the things being said in here. But if
>> there's ANY doubt about us NOT updating them, is there a need
>> to explicitly state that, say in the introduction?
>
> In the spirit of moving on, I'd prefer to avoid requiring
> another rev and will happily settle for the assurance that
> everyone involved will provide support for my pushing back if
> anyone stands up and says "you can't do <X> in URNs because
> draft-ietf-appsawg-urn-scheme-reg clarified 3986 to prohibit it".

I assume you meant "draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg" above (not "*-urn-*"). 
I'd be pushing back on any aspect which appeared to change what is required by 
RFC3986.

(All of this leaves me wondering if it would be helpful to state that explicitly 
in the registration document, but at this stage in the process I'm reluctant to 
introduce suggestions for shadow-dodging changes.)

#g
--